> ..for those posters who claim to have no opinion.
> is the following a claim or an opinion , both, or
> "....There were no restrictions on where I looked
> and I had ample time to examine the hieroglyphs
> closely, under POWERFUL(caps here mine) lights.
> Cracks in some of the joints reveal hieroglyphs
> set back far into the masonry. No 'forger' could
> possibly have reached in there after the blocks
> had been set in place - blocks, I should add, that
> weigh tens of tons each and that are immovably
> interlinked with one another. The only
> REASONABLE(caps here mine) conclusion is the one
> which orthodox Egyptologists have already long
> held - namely that the hieroglyphs are genuine Old
> Kingdom graffiti and that they were daubed on the
> blocks BEFORE(capes here mine) construction
> Provenance will be supplied following replies
What kind of game are you playing now Warwick. Like this is your classroom and you're going to teach the children something. Those are Hancock's words. If you have a point, get to it.
What you quoted was his retraction of what he written in FOG. That retraction was then retracted in 2011
Compliments of Creighton's THE GREAT PYRAMID HOAX.Quote
It's possible I threw the baby out with the bath water with that retraction. Unlike the unforgettable quarry marks positioned between the blocks, the Khufu cartouche is in plain view and could easily have been forged by Vyse.
I do not insist it was, I just accept that it could have been, and that some interesting doubts have been raised over its authenticity. I await further evidence one way or the other.
I would add that the glyphs that are claimed to be inaccessible are of a completely different style than the cartouches. And Dune easily solved the problem of how to paint in the inaccessible places.